“Students labeled as low-ability based on test scores tend to receive lower expectations from educators, while high-scoring students receive more opportunities, reinforcing educational inequality.”

Studies showed that labeling students with learning problems with an official diagnosis lowered teachers’ performance expectations of these students compared with similar unlabeled students. The LD label lowered some of teachers' long-term performance expectations, resulting in more track recommendations to a special school. A recent meta-analysis showed that academic evaluations, such as teachers’ performance expectations, were most negatively influenced by diagnostic labels for students compared with other assessments.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released a statement in response to the public release of the scores from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), noting that American students are testing at historic lows and the achievement gap is widening. The statement emphasizes that success depends on how money is controlled and invested, advocating for returning control of education to states to meet unique school and student needs.

In 2025, K-12 leaders recognize that to close academic gaps, they must systematically investigate how the quality of instruction, curricula, and academic support affect student learning. The report highlights that despite challenges, educators are innovating and adapting to deliver results for students, emphasizing evidence-based instructional strategies to enhance academic outcomes.

This brief challenges the myth that students with significant cognitive disabilities inherently have low expectations; instead, it emphasizes that general education teachers benefit from inclusion when supported, but low expectations can limit integration and opportunities.

Low teacher expectations are linked to poorer grades, lower achievement test scores, and a decreased likelihood of high school completion, with these negative effects being persistent across school years. Research suggests that students most at risk educationally, such as racial/ethnic minority students and low-income students, are particularly susceptible to the negative effects of low teacher expectations and teacher expectancy biases.

When teachers have lower expectations, they tend to provide less support and fewer opportunities for student success, leading to poorer academic performance. For instance, students whose teachers have lower expectations may receive less favorable treatment, potentially impacting their academic and overall school performance. Studies such as The Opportunity Myth (TNTP, 2018) underscore the benefits of high teacher expectations, showing significant academic gains for students whose teachers believe in their potential.

We cannot identify the teachers who matter most by using test-score impacts alone, because many teachers who raise test scores do not improve long-term outcomes... Teacher effects on test scores capture only a fraction of their impact on their students.

The high stakes testing may cause the teachers to resent the students who can't score well. And that's so profoundly to the detriment of the students.

Research, including the famous 'Pygmalion in the Classroom' study, demonstrates that teachers' beliefs about student ability can significantly affect learning gains. Systematic biases exist in teachers' educational expectations for racial minority students, with non-black teachers being less likely to expect black students to complete a four-year college degree, contributing to persistent socio-demographic gaps in educational outcomes.

Students will meet the expectations they feel the teacher has for them. If the student feels that the teacher expects them to do well, they will meet those expectations. Labeling puts an emphasis on the student's shortcomings, which can inhibit achievements.

In a classic study performed by Robert Rosenthal, elementary school teachers were given IQ scores for all of their students, scores that, unbeknownst to the teachers, did not reflect IQ... Yet just as researchers predicted, teachers formed a positive expectation for those students who scored high on the exam vs. those who scored low. In response to these expectations, the teachers inevitably altered their environment.

Our estimates suggest that teachers inflate approximately 40 percent of test scores near the proficiency cutoffs. Teachers are more likely to inflate the scores of low-performing students.

Grouping students by perceived ability can reinforce social inequalities, limit access to high-quality instruction for lower-performing students, and negatively impact their self-esteem and motivation. Students from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be placed in lower-level groups, which restricts their access to rigorous content and enrichment opportunities.

A teacher with low expectations points out mistakes without further discussion while a teacher with high expectations encourages students to reflect and offers specific feedback. Teachers with low expectations assume some students 'aren’t ready' for grade-level work and assign simpler tasks, which communicates a belief that the student cannot tackle more rigorous work, limiting their potential.

Tracking and ability grouping are considered undemocratic and often result in educational inequality, with a disparity in the quantity and quality of education between high and low tracks. Students in high tracks often have more motivated and better-trained teachers, better-equipped classrooms, smaller class sizes, and higher expectations, while low-track students are expected to learn more slowly and at lower cognitive levels.

Despite the intention of curricular tracking, students in advanced courses have significantly higher achievement gains than students in standard classes, with systemic differences in curricula and instruction contributing to these disparities. In standard courses, teachers are more likely to focus on rote memorization, while advanced courses use more rigorous curricula, student-centered activities, and critical analyses.

The practice of attaching a label to students based upon their performance on a high-stakes test led some students to be constructed by teachers as less capable. Deficit perspectives held by mentor teachers led to student blaming and lowering of expectations, which many PTs were convinced negatively impacted students.

Research has shown that children of all abilities thrive when we hold them to high expectations. For students with disabilities, overcoming low expectations can be half the battle; they are often routed into lower level classes that are too easy, reinforcing low potential instead of challenging them academically.

Teachers can subconsciously lower expectations for certain students, which can encourage poor behavior or reinforce manipulative behavior. This limits opportunities and reinforces inequality by not focusing on each child's assets.

Generally, when faced with an extreme disability such as cerebral palsy, educators are much more likely to focus on the students’ areas of weakness rather than their areas of strength. High ability/LD students displayed high creative potential but low academic success due to such lowered expectations and lack of opportunities to show strengths.

Tracking has been criticized for impeding the academic progress of low-performing students; however, a study examining a policy that sorted ninth-grade algebra classes by ability but provided doubled instructional time and additional supports for low-ability students and their teachers found that these low-ability students received more demanding instruction and better pedagogy, mitigating negative effects.

Standardized tests can highlight achievement gaps between student groups, such as those from different socioeconomic backgrounds, and provide valuable data for research and policy-making. These tests establish a universal educational standard and can guide teachers in addressing specific knowledge or achievement gaps, helping to identify struggling students who need help.

The 1968 Rosenthal-Jacobson experiment demonstrated that teachers' expectations based on fabricated IQ test labels led to higher performance in 'high-potential' students and lower in 'low-potential' ones, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that reinforces inequality.